Woods v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 04 December 1924
• Docket Number: 48.
• Citation: 126 A. 882,146 Md. 547
• Parties: WOODS v. SIMPSON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

126 A. 882

146 Md. 547

WOODS v. SIMPSON.

No. 48.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 4, 1924

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Charles W. Heuisler, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit for mandamus by Vivian V. Simpson, by Joseph B. Simpson, her father and next friend, against Dr. Albert F. Woods President and executive head of the University of Maryland and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and petition dismissed.

Argued before URNER, OFFUTT, DIGGES, BOND, and PARKE, JJ.

Herbert Levy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward H. Burke, Asst. Atty. Gen (Thomas H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellants.

C Morris Harrison and William F. Broening, both of Baltimore, for appellee.

BOND C.J.

This appeal is from an order granting the petition of a student of the University of Maryland for the writ of mandamus to compel the officers and regents of the University to permit her to continue her course. She had been refused admittance to the third year of work after she had finished the first two years. The case was heard before the court below without a jury. There are 18 exceptions noted in the record, but this court is required, upon appeal from a decision of the court in such a case, to consider and weigh the whole record, and, exercising its own judgment upon the law and facts, determine whether the decision of the trial court was correct; and, after such a consideration, we have found it unnecessary to rule upon the exceptions. Pope v. Whitridge, 110 Md. 468--475, 73 A. 281; Manger v. Board of Examiners, 90 Md. 659-673, 45 A. 891; Creager v. Hooper, 83 Md. 490-502, 35 A. 159.

It appears from the testimony taken that the petitioner was a young woman not readily submissive to rules and regulations, and that during her two years at the University she was to a considerable extent in conflict with the authorities who had her in charge. And at the conclusion of her second scholastic year, in June, 1923, when her father applied for a reservation of a room for her for the third year, the president of the institution replied that experience with the daughter had not been satisfactory, and that it was considered for her best interest, as well as for that of the students and the University, that she should not live in a dormitory. The letter concluded:

"I think it is only fair to say to you in this connection that an investigation in progress may reveal facts which may lead us to ask you to arrange for your daughter's transfer to some other institution. She is apparently not in sympathy with the management of the institution, or with the majority of the students, in their system of student government. I am calling this to your attention now, so that you may have time to decide where she is to go, in case we decide not to re-enter her here."

A letter of a week later, replying to a second effort of the father to secure a dormitory room, advised him definitely that a room would not be available for the daughter, and that, if she was readmitted, it would be as a day student.

The investigation referred to in the letter quoted was an effort to trace the source of a report, professing to have been furnished by girl students to a Washington newspaper, and there published, that men officials of the University were making objectionable suggestions to girl students, and otherwise exhibiting a wrong moral attitude toward them. Instances were described in the report. It depicted a dangerous condition, and was a serious attack on the institution, obviously demanding an investigation and correction of the condition, if it existed. It is conceded by both sides in this litigation that the report was false, but investigation was none the less necessary at the time. A students' mass meeting passed a resolution of confidence in the administration, denying the report, and all voted in favor of the resolution, except the petitioner and one other. All the girl students were asked if they knew anything of the charges, and, when the petitioner was asked by the dean of women, she turned and left, without answering. Some time in July the petitioner was invited to a conference by the president, and told by him that he had reason to believe that she signed some of the charges given to the newspaper, and was asked whether or not she had done so. The...